Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘Blade Runner’ at 40

esquire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 435 posts

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#171

Post by quakeguy »

candiddevmike wrote: post #150
aresant wrote: post #23

The visual language Bladerunner invented has virtually defined SciFi for the past 40 years. If you enjoy it's worth digging into the work Syd Mead - the film's concept artist - created: https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5642443624/in/... https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5642443252/in/... https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/5641873923/in/... https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_…

Can anyone recommend some music that has the same vibe as Blade Runner's synth stuff?

Selected Ambient Works II by Aphex Twin

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#172

Post by mhh__ »

corrral wrote: post #152
mhh__ wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is star wars actually about though. There's probably no blade runner without star wars but it's just childish/shallow if you don't buy into George Lucas. The originals are good movies but only empire is truly great and even then it's just a good flick. It asks almost no questions of the audience.

> The originals are good movies but only empire is truly great and even then it's just a good flick. It asks almost no questions of the audience. Star Wars (as in, "Episode IV: A New Hope") gets a lot of points on the greatness scale for basically inventing the multi-genre pastiche film, and for being a pretty good example of the practice. Empire's a better movie in a lot of ways, but less ground-breaking as far as t…

That's a fair assessment. I like them, I don't like the mythology of star wars movies. And not even the originals, people actually think the prequels are some misunderstood masterpieces...

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#173

Post by thombat »

deltaonefour wrote: post #95
duxup wrote: post #19

I hated that movie the first to I saw it. I was bored with it. Now I love it. I really enjoy how much time they spend establishing the atmosphere and characters. It all feels very real and has depth. I loath the speedy sci fi that tries to touch on atmosphere and then hurries along with their paper characters and so on. So much sci fi I encounter now feels little more than a long trailer with no idea how to end.

There are three things that are important to the movie. - Pacing so you don't get bored. - Thematic depth - Atmosphere A lot of pretentious people like to ignore pacing as if their brains are made up of pure IQ and anything related excitement is beneath them. Make no mistake, we are all human and we all get bored. Pacing is important and it takes a lot of effort (and intelligence) for a director to maintain that leve…

"Let's face it" - anyone who brings their preferences to the table as indisputable truths held by all reasonable, i.e. non "pretentious", folk, could probably do with some long expository chats with other film fans in a good cafe around the corner from a good cinema.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#174

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

I have a personal opinion about voice-overs that were removed in later editions. Typically, people hate them, and truly, they are somewhat out of place when you hear them.

However, they get much better on subsequent viewings of more modern cuts, when you don't hear them, but you remember them.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#175

Post by LegitShady »

deltaonefour wrote: post #155
kennywinker wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Star Wars isn't science fiction, it's fantasy

No it's not. You're just getting too technical. Star wars is science fiction. Because in the same vein you could call LOTR science fiction too because the fantasy elements are just natural properties of the created world. The "magic" can technically be technology as well.

Star wars has literal space magic. Hard disagree. It's not in any way speculative fiction - it's a fantasy story told in a sci Fi aesthetic.

LOTR is explicitly a fantasy story in a fantasy aesthetic. Magic can be technology but it doesn't try to be in either of the stories you mention.

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#176

Post by tingol »

antishatter wrote: post #8
x3iv130f wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't tell the diehard fans but I prefer the theatrical edition as the story works better in a shorter punchier presentation.

With the hilariously bad harrison ford voice over? my god man.

Yeah, I'm not opening any movie topics on HN based on replies to this one :D

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#177

Post by mhh__ »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #174

I have a personal opinion about voice-overs that were removed in later editions. Typically, people hate them, and truly, they are somewhat out of place when you hear them. However, they get much better on subsequent viewings of more modern cuts, when you don't hear them, but you remember them.

The idea of a gruff but charismatic Harrison Ford ticking the story along isn't a bad one I suppose.

It just ended like https://youtu.be/m__PBksZ0zA

Re: ‘Blade Runner’ at 40

#178

Post by mhh__ »

rainworld wrote: post #158

As for The Question, I believe there is a fairly unambiguous answer... http://www.gavinrothery.com/my-blog/2011/10/1/a-matter-of-el...

Hampton Fancher I think once said the question is more interesting than the answer, I'm inclined to agree, although once you notice the nudging in the sequel it's more funny than anything else.
Post reply on HN